By Lawan Musa D (Baba Lawan )
October 2025
Since 1999, one of the most persistent contradictions in Nigeria’s democracy has been the role of state governors in security management. On paper, they are described as the “Chief Security Officers” of their states. In practice, however, the police and other security agencies routinely ignore their directives. This constitutional contradiction has fuelled recurring conflicts between governors and Commissioners of Police (CPs), especially when the ruling party at the federal centre is different from that in the state.
The result is a cycle of political brinkmanship, public grandstanding, and—most dangerously—citizens left at the mercy of insecurity while political elites bicker over command authority.
Rivers State: The Theatre of CP–Governor Feuds
Perhaps the most notorious example is Rivers State during the tenure of Governor Rotimi Amaechi (2013–2015). His open clash with then Commissioner of Police, Joseph Mbu, turned into a national spectacle. Amaechi accused Mbu of undermining his authority and acting more like a PDP political operative than a neutral security chief. Police officers allegedly stood by as thugs disrupted rallies, a scenario that reinforced fears of federal partisanship in policing.
Ekiti State: Police Siege and Political Bias
In Ekiti, Governor Kayode Fayemi and later Ayodele Fayose also experienced controversial interventions. In 2014, during the governorship election, security agencies, particularly the police, were accused of intimidation and selective enforcement of law and order. Fayemi lamented that the police acted as though they were under the direct control of the PDP-led federal government rather than being neutral arbiters of security.
Anambra State: A Governor Kidnapped Under Police Watch
Perhaps the darkest illustration of the dangers of centralised policing came in July 2003 in Anambra State. The sitting governor, Chris Ngige, was abducted in broad daylight by his own police detail under orders linked to powerful political interests in Abuja. That a democratically elected governor could be kidnapped by the same security forces assigned to protect him exposed the extent of the constitutional weakness. The Anambra saga remains a chilling reminder that in Nigeria, governors are often at the mercy of forces outside their control.
Kano State: From Parade Boycotts to Emirate Crises
Fast forward to Kano, where Governor Abba Kabir Yusuf has had repeated confrontations with the state Commissioner of Police. In 2025, the CP boycotted the Independence Day parade at Sani Abacha Stadium despite the governor’s invitation, an act widely seen as a political snub.
But the more explosive flashpoint came during the emirate crisis, when the governor moved to restore the pre-2019 single emirate system and reinstall Muhammadu Sanusi II as Emir of Kano. The CP openly defied the governor’s directive to enforce the new law and instead barricaded the palace, citing “orders from above.” That defiance inflamed tensions, polarised Kano society, and raised the question: who truly controls the instruments of authority in a state—the elected governor or a police commissioner answerable to Abuja?
Katsina State: Even Allies are Ignored
Even in Katsina, a state under the same party as the federal government, Governor Dikko Radda recently accused security operatives of refusing to obey his instructions on tackling banditry. If a governor from the President’s own party cannot exercise effective control over security forces in his domain, what hope exists for governors in opposition-controlled states?
Zamfara State: Banditry, Dialogue, and Federal Disregard
In Zamfara, successive governors—Abdulaziz Yari, Bello Matawalle, and now Dauda Lawal—have all clashed with security agencies over strategies to curb banditry. While some governors pushed dialogue with bandits, others preferred a military crackdown. Yet in each case, Commissioners of Police and military commanders often ignored state directives, insisting on “orders from Abuja.” In 2021, Governor Matawalle publicly accused federal security heads of sabotaging his peace initiative, while in 2023, Governor Lawal complained that security chiefs were frustrating his efforts to adopt a tougher stance. The human cost of this tug-of-war has been devastating: thousands killed and displaced while political and institutional actors traded blame.
A Pattern of Crisis Across States
From Rivers to Ekiti, Anambra to Kano, Katsina to Zamfara, the pattern is clear: Nigeria’s security architecture is designed to frustrate governors. Commissioners of Police routinely take instructions from Abuja rather than the states they are posted to serve. Yet governors are held politically accountable for insecurity. It is a contradiction that has outlived four civilian presidents, five Inspectors-General of Police, and more than two decades of democratic rule.
The Constitutional Fault Line
The 1999 Constitution (Sections 214 and 215) centralises policing under the Inspector-General, appointed by the President. While governors may “give directions” to the CP, those directions are subject to the CP’s discretion, and ultimately, to Abuja’s veto. This bizarre arrangement leaves governors carrying the blame for insecurity but lacking the authority to act decisively.
It is little wonder then that every election cycle, and often during major security emergencies, governors and CPs engage in open confrontations. The public, meanwhile, suffers from the politicisation of policing.
The Way Out: Reforming Nigeria’s Security Federalism
Nigeria must urgently reform its policing architecture if democracy is to survive its current security challenges. Several pathways exist:
1. State Police with Safeguards
Establish properly funded state police forces, but with constitutional safeguards to prevent abuse by governors.
Recruitment and promotions should involve independent state police commissions with civil society oversight.
Federal police should remain to handle inter-state crimes, terrorism, and offences against the federation.
2. Strengthening Oversight Mechanisms
A stronger Police Service Commission that can discipline CPs who openly undermine governors’ lawful directives.
Legislative oversight by state assemblies to ensure local police structures are not politicised.
3. Joint Security Committees with Binding Rules
At present, security council meetings at state level are more ceremonial than binding. Their resolutions should have legal force, compelling CPs and other security heads to implement decisions agreed with governors.
4. Clearer Constitutional Language
The vague constitutional provision that governors may “give directions” to CPs must be amended. Either governors should be given clear operational control over state policing or the “Chief Security Officer” title should be dropped to avoid deception.
5. Technology and Transparency
Beyond structures, Nigeria must invest in transparent policing through body cameras, CCTV coverage, and community policing mechanisms. This reduces opportunities for CPs or governors to abuse power behind closed doors.
Conclusion: Stop the Hypocrisy
If governors are truly Chief Security Officers, they should be given real authority to direct security agencies in their states. If not, the title should be stripped away to avoid misleading citizens. What is unsustainable is the current hypocrisy where governors are held responsible for insecurity yet denied the legal authority to command those tasked with providing security.
Until these fault lines are addressed, we will continue to witness ugly episodes like Rivers, Ekiti, Anambra, Kano, Katsina, and Zamfara. The ordinary Nigerian—trapped between bandits, insurgents, kidnappers, and political police rivalries—deserves better than this dangerous game of constitutional contradictions.
Tags
Opinion